GOVERNANCE OF FEDERALLY PROTECTED RIVERS: AN INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

GOVERNANCE OF FEDERALLY PROTECTED RIVERS: AN INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS OF THE PARTNERSHIP APPROACH TO WILD AND SCENIC RIVER MANAGEMENT IN THE WHITE CLAY CREEK

Kristen Molfetta Master of Science in Water Science and Policy College of Arts & Sciences, School of Public Policy & Administration University of Delaware Institute for Public Administration, Water Resources Center June 29, 2016

Presentation Overview

• Research Introduction
• Fundamentals of Water Governance and Policy
• National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and System
• Partnership Wild and Scenic Rivers: Management Framework
• Study Area: Interstate White Clay Creek Watershed
• Research Methodology
• Research Results
• Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Research

Research Introduction

• 3.5 million miles of rivers and streams in the United States that

support an assortment of uses and vary in condition

• Approaches to management and policy have evolved to address

these differences

• Less than ¼ of 1% of all U.S. rivers have been uniquely

designated as wild and scenic under the national system

• Goal: To conduct a rigorous institutional analysis of the

partnership approach to Wild and Scenic river management using the White Clay Creek watershed as a case study.

Research Introduction

Research Questions

• 1. What is the particular structural arrangement of the partnership

Wild and Scenic river management regime?

• 2. What are some of the institutional processes and outcomes that

result from working in this particular forum?

• 3. What are the factors that promote partnerships in the Wild and

Scenic river context and how is success measured?

Fundamentals of Water Governance and Policy

Defining Water Governance

• “The range of political, social, economic, and administrative

systems that are in place to develop and manage water resources, and the delivery of water services, at different levels of society.”

• Formulation, establishment, and implementation of:
• Water policies
• Legislation
• Institutions
• Roles and Responsibilities of: government, private sector, civil society

Fundamentals of Water Governance and Policy

Complexities of Water Management

• Scarcity
• Maldistribution
• Sharing and Overutilization
• Transboundary or interjurisdictional obstacles

Fundamentals of Water Governance and Policy

Federal Laws and Regulations

• Rivers and Harbors Act (1899)
• Reclamation Act (1902)
• Boundary Waters Treaty (1909)
• River Basin Study Act (308 Act) (1925)
• Federal Water Pollution Control Act (1948)
• Water Resources Council (1965)
• Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (1968)
• National Environmental Policy Act (1969)
• Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments (1972)
• Clean Water Act (1977)
• Water Quality Act (1987)
• Safe Drinking Water Act and Amendments (1986, 1996)

Fundamentals of Water Governance and Policy

Selected U.S. Federal Water Resources Agencies

Fundamentals of Water Governance and Policy

Evolution of Partnerships in Water Governance

• Devolution of federal and state agency authority
• Adaptable strategies
• Problem driven and process oriented
• Egalitarian and proactive
• Formal or Informal
• Watershed partnership is inclusive of terms such as: committees,

councils, advisory groups, task forces etc.

National Wild & Scenic Rivers Act and System

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (1968)

• Established a policy of preserving designated free-flowing rivers for the

benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations

• Protects certain rivers and river segments that qualify as “outstandingly

remarkable”

• Eligible rivers must be free-flowing and possess one or more

Outstanding Resource Values (ORVs):

• Scenery
• Recreation
• Geology
• Fish
• Wildlife
• Prehistory
• History
• Cultural
• Other Values

National Wild & Scenic Rivers Act and System

Classifications

• Wild: rivers or river sections free of impoundments and generally

inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive with unpolluted waters

• Scenic: rivers or river sections free of impoundments, with

shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but are accessible in places by roads

• Recreational: rivers or river sections readily accessible by road or

railroad, that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past

National Wild & Scenic Rivers Act and System

National System

• 208 river units
• 12,708.8 miles
• 40 U.S. States and Puerto Rico
• Administered by Federal Agencies (National Park Service, Fish

and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management and the National Forest Service), State Agencies, Local or Tribal Governments

• Less than ¼ of 1% of all U.S. rivers

Federal State Municipal/Local

• Administered by BLM, NPS, USFS,
• r USFWS under WSRA Section 3(a)
• Responsible for implementing the

WSRA’s requirements including the development of a comprehensive river management plan within 3 fiscal years from the designation date

• Must protect and enhance a river’s

values, through its authority on federal lands and through voluntary, cooperative strategies

• May regulate use and activities
• ccurring on WSR surface waters

(exercise of Federal authority relies

• n a connection between regulated

conduct and designated purpose)

• Administered by respective state(s)

under WSRA Section 2(a)(ii)

• Responsible for providing protection

(except on federally administered lands)

• Regulating and enforcing fishing

and/or hunting regulations

• Adjudicating water rights and

appropriation

• Developing and administering water

quality standards

• Administering state land use

regulations on non-Federal lands

• Managing state lands and facilities

along the river (e.g., forests, parks, state highways)

• Encouraged via Federal WSR

agencies to provide for protection of values in land use plans (including the use of zoning decisions and other land use restrictions).

• Participation in the development of

comprehensive river management plans in areas of mixed ownership

Roles of Wild and Scenic River Administering Agencies

Management Framework

Approaches to Wild & Scenic River Management

• Top-Down, Federal Management
• One of four federal land management agencies administer responsibility for

the designation

• Implemented on federally owned lands
• Partnership Management
• National Park Service, state, county, and local stakeholders collaborate in
• verseeing and maintaining responsibility for the designation
• Implemented on privately owned lands
• Geographically located in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic

Federal Lands and Indian Reservations

Partnership Wild and Scenic River: Management Framework

• Little, if any adjacent land is federally or state owned and is

instead concentrated in private or local municipal jurisdiction

• Federal acquisition of land is prohibited and designation does not

establish a national park

• Local control and self-determination prioritized
• Existing river uses continue
• Existing management responsibilities remain unchanged

Partnership Wild and Scenic River: Management Framework

The Partnership Rivers

Partnership WSR State(s) River Miles Designated Eightmile River CT 25.3 2008 Upper Farmington River CT 14 1994 Great Egg Harbor NJ 129 1992 Lamprey River NH 23.5 1996 Lower Delaware River NJ, PA 67.3 2000 Maurice River NJ 35.4 1993 Missisquoi and Trout Rivers VT 46.1 2014 Musconetcong River NJ 24.2 2006 Sudbury, Assabet, Concord Rivers MA 29 1999 Taunton River MA 40 2009 Wekiva River FL 41.6 2000 Westfield River MA 78.1 1993 White Clay Creek DE, PA 199 2000

Partnership Wild and Scenic River: Management Framework Federal Funding

500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000

2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Total Annual Funding ($) Total Annual NPS Funding for Partnership Wild & Scenic Rivers Program

Partnership Wild and Scenic River: Management Framework Federal Funding

50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000

Annual Funding ($)

NPS Funding for Partnership Wild and Scenic Rivers (FY2014)

Study Area: Interstate White Clay Creek Watershed

White Clay Creek as a Case Study

• One of a few relatively intact,

unspoiled and ecologically functioning rivers in the area

• First entire watershed (rather

than just a corridor or river segment) designated into the national Wild and Scenic system

• Bi-state watershed
• Significant source of drinking

water for 120,000 people

Study Area: Interstate White Clay Creek Watershed

Wild and Scenic Designation History

• 1991: White Clay Creek Study Act (P.L. 102-215) signed
• 1992: Study task force (later advisory committee) convened

charged with overseeing the preparation of the management plan, and creating a forum for communication

• 1993-1994: Subcommittees held public workshops in both

Delaware and Pennsylvania, put out a number of pertinent reports and studies

• 1995: Study task force organized a planning committee to begin

management plan development

• 1997: Original Management Plan completed; amended in 2001
• 2000: White Clay Creek officially designated (P.L. 106-357)
• 2014: White Clay River Expansion Act (P.L., 113-291) added

approximately 9 miles stream miles to the existing designation

Research Methodology

Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) Framework

• IAD framework is used to investigate the institutional

arrangement and performance of the partnership approach to Wild and Scenic river management using the White Clay Creek watershed as a case study.

• Theoretical framework developed by Elinor Ostrom and

colleagues

• Method used to assist policymakers and researchers study

governance systems by identifying aspects of the physical, cultural, and institutional settings that are likely to affect the determination of:

• Who is involved in a situation
• Actions those involved take and the costs
• The outcomes that are achieved

Research Methodology

IAD Framework

Source: (Ostrom, 2011)

Research Methodology

Data Collection

• White Clay Creek Wild & Scenic Quarterly Steering Committee Meeting

Attendance:

• May 2016
• Notes were taken by the researcher during the meeting on procedures, processes, and

discussion topics; past meeting minutes were also reviewed to account for general patterns

• Key Informant Interview
• April 2016
• Semi-structured in depth interview carried out with the White Clay Creek Management Plan

Coordinator (MPC)

• White Clay Creek Wild & Scenic Committee Member Survey
• Survey instrument distributed online to 19 committee members; 63% response rate
• Document Analysis
• Comprehensive River Management Plan and updates
• Annual Reports
• Websites

Research Results

Actors and Agencies

• General Membership “members at large”
• Non-voting, participatory
• Dispense knowledge and support the program
• Technical expertise in archaeology, cultural and historical resources,

fisheries biology, watershed management, recreation etc.

• Program partners change year to year
• Some agencies more inclusive than others

Research Results

White Clay Creek Wild and Scenic Program Partners

Research Results

Actors and Agencies

• Steering Committee Members
• Two Co-Chairs (one each from DE and PA)
• One paid staff (Management Plan Coordinator) supported through

the White Clay Watershed Association

• MPC position was added in 2002 to assist the committee in project

and administrative duties.

• Current MPC has held the position since 2012
• Minimum goal of 17 additional steering committee positions

Research Results

White Clay Creek Wild & Scenic Committee Profile

Public Agencies and Organizations Private/Non-Profit Agencies and Organizations

• National Park Service (liaison)
• DNREC, Division of Parks and Recreation
• Chester County Planning Commission
• Chester County Conservation District
• New Castle Conservation District
• City of Newark
• Franklin Township
• New Garden Township
• London Britain Township
• London Britain Land Trust
• Coalition for Natural Stream Valleys
• White Clay Creek Watershed Association
• UD Water Resources Agency
• Delaware Nature Society
• Sovereign Consulting Inc.
• White Clay Fly Fishers
• Brandywine Conservancy
• Natural Lands Trust
• Friends of PA White Clay Creek Preserve

Research Results

Action Situation Defined

• Conceptually: Action situations are the social spaces where

individuals interact, exchange goods and services, solve problems, dominate one another, or fight (Ostrom, 2011).

• An action situation is the ‘IAD centerpiece’, where individuals

meet in social settings, and establish patterns of interaction that generate outcomes for those individuals, as well as social and ecological effects.

• Structurally composed of three sets of broad variables:
• Biophysical structure of the resource
• Community attributes
• Institutional rules in use

Research Results

Biophysical Structure of the Resource- Geography

• White Clay Creek drains roughly 108 square miles (69,000 acres)
• Southeastern Pennsylvania and Northwestern Delaware
• Runs through the Piedmont region, dropping over the fall line and to the Atlantic

Coastal Plain

• One of four watersheds that make up the larger Christina River Basin (565 square

miles), which flows into the Delaware River Estuary Stream Drainage Area (mi2)

East Branch White Clay Creek 33 Middle Branch White Clay Creek 16 West Branch White Clay Creek 10 Main Stem White Clay Creek 25 Middle Run 4 Pike Creek 7 Mill Creek 13 Total Area 108

Research Results

Biophysical Structure of the Resource- Hydrology

• Mean annual temperatures: 54 degrees Fahrenheit
• Normal annual precipitation: 44 inches/year
• Mean annual flow: 133 cubic feet/second (White Clay Creek Near

Newark, DE)

• Watershed is affected by seasonally occurring severe weather
• Surface and groundwater in the White Clay Creek watershed

provide water to over 120,000 people

Research Results

Perceived Environmental Issues in the White Clay Creek Watershed

Environmental Issue of Concern Mean Value (0-5) STDEV N= N= Land Conversion 3.27 0.90 11 Storm water Runoff 4.00 1.00 11 Flooding 3.10 0.74 10 Water Supply (Quantity) 2.88 0.64 8 Toxics in Water 3.80 0.92 10 Sedimentation 3.91 1.14 11 Nutrients in Water 4.00 1.00 11 Bacteria in Water 3.91 0.94 11 Invasive Species 4.27 1.01 11 Species Diversity 3.45 1.04 11 Loss of Wetlands 3.09 0.83 11 Habitat Loss 3.55 0.82 11 Key: Very Low=1, Low=2, Moderate=3, High=4, Very High=5

Research Results

Community Attributes: Disparate Land Uses and Population

37% 33% 30%

White Clay Creek Watershed Land Cover

Developed Agriculture Forest/Wetlands Main Stem Mill Creek Pike Creek East Branch Middle Branch West Branch Middle Run

• 5,000

10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Population

Population in the White Clay Creek Watershed by Subwatershed (1970 - 2030)

(Projected)

Research Results

Community Attributes: Political Jurisdictions and Considerations

• 43% of the watershed area lies within Delaware
• 57% of the watershed area lies within Pennsylvania
• (a very small portion, less than 1% also crosses into Maryland

States Counties Municipalities

Delaware Pennsylvania Chester New Castle City of Newark Avondale East Marlborough Franklin Kennett Londonderry London Britain London Grove New Garden New London Penn West Grove West Marlborough

Research Results

Community Attributes: Municipal Support

• Value of cooperative support that certain municipalities provide
• “The committee has very good support from townships in the watershed”.
• “Willing landowners and willing municipalities are crucial for implementation of projects

such as land preservation, streamside buffers etc.”

• Larger municipalities that have more resources available to them

have been more participatory

• Certain municipalities are not fully represented as members of the

committee (e.g., Avondale, Londonderry, Penn)

Research Results

Human Resources

• Wild and Scenic Program itself has minimal full time human

resources

• MPC- part-time position; only paid program employee
• Provides updates to the steering committee via reports, meeting materials and

annual reports

• University of Delaware Water Resources Center Student Intern (via

contractual agreement)

• Summer Intern (funding permitting)
• Expertise of the committee members
• Volunteers and community members

Research Results

Technical Resources

• GIS mapping assistance from the UD Water Resources Center

and Brandywine Conservancy

• UD Water Resources Center also assists with writing and

publishing brochures, graphic publications, and repots (via contractual agreement)

• Publically available datasets
• USGS data (historic and current stream gage data- stream flow conditions)
• Delaware Environmental Observing System (DEOS) (meteorological

conditions; temperature and precipitation data)

• Delaware Water Quality Data Portal (water quality data)

Research Results

Financial Resources

• White Clay Watershed Association (WCWA) is the umbrella
• rganization that is responsible for the program’s financial accounting
• WCWA tracks expenditures, files appropriate tax forms with the IRS and State,

files for reimbursement from the National Park Service, and holds checking accounts for the program in WCWA’s name

• Updates on program budget intent and fiscal year work plan are

discussed at committee meetings

• Federal Appropriations
• Federal appropriation from NPS is the main funding source, but fluctuates from

year to year

• Leveraged Funds and In-Kind Contributions
• From state, county, and local governments, partner organizations and the

community

20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Annual Funding ($)

White Clay Creek Wild and Scenic Federal Funding Support

Research Results

White Clay Creek Wild & Scenic Funds and Contributions (2008-2014)

Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 In-Kind

$100,000 $130,000 $124,360 $52,500 $72,517 73,041 $73,000

Federal

$148,000 $137,000 $133,000 $95,500 $99,000 $82,000 $95,000

Percent Change

73%

• 7%
• 3%
• 28%

4%

• 17%

16%

Grants

$1,000 $7,190 $1,000 $2,000 $85,678 $62,530

WCC Fund

$4,941 $5,924 $5,911

Charitable

$123 $67 $262

In-Kind Match

68% 95% 94% 55% 73% 89% 77%

Nonfederal Match

68% 100% 94% 56% 80% 201% 149%

Research Results

White Clay Creek Wild and Scenic Funding Sources (2010-2015)

Funding Source 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 NPS $133,000 $95,000 $99,000 $82,000 $95,000 $72,721 Suez Water $100 $1,000 $2,000 $2,000 $9,000 $14,222 PADEP $54,630 $9,300 WCC Fund $4,941 $5,924 $5,995 $8,213 DNREC $83,078 $5,000 $3,285 Municipal Support $4,380 $5,180 Mushroom Farmers (PA) $600 $1,000 $1,000 DE State Charitable $67.28 $300 $219 Habitat/Water Quality $77,500 $8,078 Open Space Preservation $45,000 $30,000 $15,000 Professional (Hours) 2,580 900 1,000 1,000 800 1,625 Professional ($) $124,360 $52,500 $72,517 $73,041 $54,538 $51,834

Research Results

Institutional Rules: Internal Partnership Rules

• Program Purpose: “Promotes and supports the preservation, protection, restoration, and

enhancement of natural and cultural resources, in addition to encouraging a balance of recreational enjoyment of the White Clay Creek watershed in Pennsylvania and Delaware”

• Function and Authority:
• Strictly advisory in nature
• Provides advice to agencies and institutions with management or regulatory authority
• Procedures:
• Governed by a set of Bylaws and Memorandum of Understanding
• Limits for terms of Co-Chairs, Committee Members,
• Meetings:
• Quarterly steering committee meetings during normal business hours
• Convenes for updates on activities and plans and to receive fiscal reporting
• Meeting minutes are recorded and published on the program’s website
• All steering committee meetings are open to the public
• Decision-making:
• Democratic decision-making through consensus
• In cases where a majority vote cannot be reached, the decision falls to the Co-Chair whose

state is most affected by the decision

Research Results Institutional Rules: External Partnership Protection Regulations

Protection State

Pennsylvania Delaware County/Local

• Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC; Act 247)
• Chester County Comprehensive Plan Landscapes [1996] and

Landscapes2 [2009]

• Delaware Storm Water and Sediment Regulations
• New Castle County Water Resource Protection Area

(WRPA) Ordinance [1987]

• New Castle County Dept. of Public Works Drainage

Code

• City of Newark Zoning Regulations
• Delaware Code Title 9, Chapters 13, 26, 30

State

• Pennsylvania Storm Water Management Act (Act 167) [1978]
• Pennsylvania Municipal Waste Planning Recycling and Waste

Reduction Act (Act 101) [1988]

• Executive Order: Governor of PA, 1989-2
• Pennsylvania Rivers Conservation Program
• Pennsylvania Scenic Rivers Act (P.L. 1277, Act 283) [1972]
• Christina Basin TMDLs
• Delaware Land Protection Act [1990]
• Source Water Assessment and Protection Program

[1999]

• Delaware Greenway Program
• Delaware Open Space Program

Regional

• Delaware River Basin Compact [1961]
• White Clay Creek Preserve and White Clay Creek State Park

Federal

• National Environmental Policy Act [1970]
• Clean Water Act [1972]
• Endangered Species Act [1973]
• Safe Drinking Water Act [1974]
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [1976]
• EPA Superfund Program

Research Results

Evaluating Institutional Performance

Transaction Costs Reported by the White Clay Creek Wild & Scenic Committee Transaction Costs Mean Value (0-5) STDEV N= N= Sharing Information 2.73 0.90 11 Coordinating Activities 3.00 1.10 11 Agreeing on management strategies 2.27 0.90 11 Building new relationships with stakeholders 2.45 0.82 11 Key: [Level of Difficulty] 1=very low; 2=low; 3=moderate; 4=high; 5=very high

Research Results

Evaluating Institutional Performance

Institutional Performance Reported by the White Clay Creek Wild & Scenic Committee Evaluation Criteria Mean Value (0-5) SDEV N= N= Efficiency 4.50 0.52 12 Fairness 5.00 0.00 12 Accountability 4.27 0.79 11 Adaptability 4.33 0.65 12 Key: 1=Very Low; 2=Low; 3=Moderate; 4=High; 5=Very High

Research Results

Evaluating Partnership Success

Factors that Promote Collaboration Between White Clay Creek Wild & Scenic Partners Item Mean Value (0-5) STDEV N= N= Trust 4.09 1.22 11 Communication 4.73 0.90 11 Shared Vision 4.45 0.82 11 Time 4.36 0.67 11 Planning 4.27 0.90 11 Leadership 4.64 0.92 11 Flexibility 4.18 0.98 11 Key: 1=Not Important, 2=Slightly Important, 3= Moderately Important, 4=Very Important, 5= Extremely Important

Research Results

Evaluating Partnership Success

Internal and External Factors that Influence WCCWS Success Internal Factors [#] External Factors [#] Funding [9] Human Resources [6] Time [4] Planning [1] (NPS) Funding [2] Local/Community Support [2] State Rules, Regulations, Enforcement [2] Political Climate [1] Education [1]

Research Results

Environmental Outputs- Dam Removal

• Removal of Dam No. 1 (Byrnes Mill Dam) in 2014
• Opened up four miles of river corridor for fish
• First dam removal in the state of Delaware
• Project was led by the UDWRA; White Clay Wild and Scenic

Program continues to work with partner organizations to support future removal of obsolete dams

Research Results

Environmental Outputs- Land Preservation

4,000 8,000 12,000 16,000 20,000 Conservation easements Ag easements (PA only) County lands (DE only) Municipal lands State lands Homeowner Total

Acres

Open Space in the White Clay Creek Watershed 2005 and 2015

2005 2015

WCCWSP has directly contributed to preservation of just under 2,000 acres of open space and $88,760 in land preservation and acquisition.

Research Results

Environmental Outputs- Riparian Buffers

• Can be difficult to plan and install streamside buffers because the

majority of land in the watershed is privately owned

• White Clay Reforestation Plan (2009) and data collection/GIS

mapping by Stroud and the Brandywine Conservancy have identified gaps in forest areas

Annual Stream Buffers Implemented in the White Clay Watershed 2010-2015 Year Acreage Trees Planted Stream Buffer (linear feet) 2010 10 3000 2400 2012 2.44 1150 1850 2013 8.18 2800 1400 2014 0.6 100 470 2015 12.7 3105 6180 Total 33.92 10155 12300 (2.33 miles )

Research Results

Environmental Outputs- Other BMPs

Year BMP Number Location 2013 Stormwater Basins 3 City-owned land outside the Hunt at Louviers, City of Newark, DE 2013 Grass Swales 2 Swift Park, Hockessin, DE 2014 Rain Basins 2 Goddard Park, London Grove Township, PA 2014 Manure Management 1 Heifer Farm, Franklin Township, PA 2014 Habitat Planting 1 Landenberg Junction Trail Head, New Garden Township, PA 2015 Manure Management 1 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (dairy), London Grove Township 2015 Riparian Buffer and Floodplain Enhancement 1 New Garden Township Park, PA 2015 Riparian Buffer and Floodplain Enhancement 1 Curtis Mill Park, Newark, DE

Research Results

Social Outputs- Education, Outreach, Publications

• White Clay Creek Fest
• White Clay Creek Symposium
• City of Newark National Wildlife Federation and Community

Habitat

• Shad in Schools Program
• White Clay Creek Passport
• BMP and Watershed Road Signage
• State of the Watershed (2008) and Update on the State of the

Watershed (2016)

• Annual Report
• Program website; monthly blog posts, London Grove and New

Garden Township Newsletters

Conclusions

• 1. What is the particular structural arrangement of the partnership

Wild and Scenic river management regime?

• Characterized by bi-state, interagency nontraditional management

framework

• Based on the underlying principle that existing institutions and

authorities provide the foundation for the long-term protection of the watershed

• Program it’s actors include a consortium of all government units

including local municipalities, counties, states, and the National Park Service as well as non-profits, non-governmental organizations, educational and research institutions, business and industry, water purveyors, private landowners and residents

• This structure is intended to merge diverse interests together under a

common purpose and within a permanent and representative body

Conclusions

• 2. What are some of the institutional processes and
• utcomes that result from working in this particular forum?
• Institutional Processes:
• Plays a strictly advisory role
• Institutional rules and processes intrinsic (memorandum of understanding,

bylaws, committee meeting procedures) and external (existing regulations, laws, and agency responsibilities) to the partnership

• Democratically oriented, consensus-based decision-making
• Fairness unanimously ranked as the highest performance measure
• Program generates mostly social outputs focused on watershed

education, outreach and publications; with implementation of environmental BMPs and land preservation

Conclusions

• 3. What are the factors that promote partnerships in the Wild

and Scenic river context and how is success measured?

• Measuring program success is somewhat ambiguous; success is

not measured in one tangible way but rather by a number of different quantitative and qualitative metrics

• Factors that promote success
• human resources
• funding
• communication

Research Limitations

• Results of this study are highly localized and confined to

management in the White Clay Creek watershed

• Empirical and observational aspects of data collection
• Temporal limitations

Recommendations for Future Research

• Streamlining of available Wild and Scenic river datasets
• Institutional comparison using similar methodology for two

partnership wild and scenic rivers (as opposed to a focused case study)

• Comparison of White Clay Committee member perceptions from

this study to those in the future (e.g. 5, 10, 15 years from now)